Active Now

Danilo_G
Spunky
DannyPetti
Discussion » Questions » History » The USA is about due for a significant realignment of its Constitutional system. What form do you think that realignment will take?
OldSchoolTheSKOSlives

The USA is about due for a significant realignment of its Constitutional system. What form do you think that realignment will take?

My (not very strong) historical evidence for my claim is that the US has not had a significant Constitutional Amendment passed in over 45 years (I don't consider the 27th Amendment, which made a minor adjustment to Congressional salary rules, to be significant).

There have been two such periods of relative Constitutional calm/inertia in the country's past.

From 1804 to 1865, no amendments were passed. The unaddressed issues around slavery led to the Civil War.

From 1870 to 1913, no amendments were passed. The unadressed issues surrounding industrialization, imperialism, wealth/income inequality, and increasing economic volatility led to the Progressive Era and measures such as the income tax, the Federal Reserve, direct election of Senators, and granting women the right to vote.

What form do you think the next shift in Constitutional structure will take?

Posted - November 25, 2016
Tags : None

Responses


  • 46117
    Let me just throw this back at you because you are going to have a much better take than I will.  Judging from the responses you get, you will probably give a much better take than 99 percent of the people on here will give you.

    But, I digress.

    Here goes:   Trump?  You know that jerkoff that is going to take over soon?  Well he will be responsible, will he not, for any changes made to the Constitution?  Not personally, of course, but he will appoint enough jerks to ensure the Constitution will be written differently if it SUITS him and his Tea Party staff.  So, what do you think he may do? 

    What should be done, is beyond my ken.  What will be done is unimaginable.  I shudder to think what lies ahead.  

    So, to answer your question: I have no idea.  It would entail my reading The Constitution again (groan).  That's excon's department. This post was edited by WM BARR . =ABSOLUTE TRASH at November 26, 2016 4:25 AM MST
      November 25, 2016 5:38 PM MST
    2

  • End private banking controlling our currency.
      November 25, 2016 5:52 PM MST
    1

  • 3934
    I understand the notion of modern fractional banking disquiets some people. However, I don't see a broad consenus to eliminate it.

    I DO see a relatively broad consensus that taxpayers should not be bailing out "too big to fail" banks who take excessive risks. However, the Powers That Be have temporarily managed to convince a large plurality of the people that the last economic collapse was due to The Undeserving (i.e. poor/urban/ethnic people) borrowing unwisely, not the excesses and fraud of the financial industry.

    Also, I'm not sure what form of consitutional shift would create the change you think is necessary. What would that look like? This post was edited by OldSchoolTheSKOSlives at November 25, 2016 6:48 PM MST
      November 25, 2016 6:47 PM MST
    0

  • To be honest. I did a glance read of the question and thought it was asking what we would like see.  So I just grabbed one off the laundry list.
    A lot of the tax, economic, and debt problems are kinda related to the fact the government and people all borrow debt based money from a private bank.  Regardless, keep it, don't keep it   something with it has to change and change drastically with it.

    To change it?   A Constitutional Amendment stating that only the peoples government (Federal, State, either, both)  can issue and control the national currency.  Why should a private entity control the banking, inflation,  printing, and backing of the nations currency?   Why should the government be paying it interest?   Especially a fiat currency that is backed in trust of a government it is separate from and doesn't have to answer much to.  Though your right,  why would it change?  Why would the politicians who all benefit from it and the large government that gains power over from the people let it change?  Why would the bankers working with it not use some of their money control to stop it? 
    the whole concept of our currency is insane.
      November 25, 2016 7:05 PM MST
    0

  • 3934
    @Glis -- I suspect this is a subject we will never see eye-to-eye on...;-D...

    http://www.theonion.com/article/us-economy-grinds-to-halt-as-nation-realizes-money-2912
      November 25, 2016 7:16 PM MST
    0

  • That's cool.
      November 25, 2016 7:55 PM MST
    0

  • 3934
    @Sharonna -- In this context, Trump is not very important. He can PROPOSE Constitutional Amendments,  but he has no direct influence on the process. The condensed version of how a constitutional amendment gets passed is:

    1) A 2/3rds majority of BOTH houses of Congress approve a proposed amendment. Whereupon it is sent to the states and...

    2) A 3/4ths majority of state legislatures (i.e. 38 out of the 50 states) approve it.

    That's a very high hurdle for any amendment to overcome.

    I think Trump's election is a SYMPTOM of the bigger social forces which will cause a constitutional realignment in the not-too-distant future. Some of those social forces include:

    --Increasingly wide disparities between rural low-population-density areas and urban areas in terms of wealth, political influence, demographic makeup, etc.

    --Increasing dominance of our political system by a narrow range of monied interests.

    --Increasing monopolization of many societal functions (esp. Mass Media/News)

    --The loss of personal autonomy because of government/industry surveillance of our electronic personae (i.e. People who can see our online information can know a ***ton*** about us).

    I'm sure there are others, but those are the ones I see requiring some rethinking of how we construct/govern our society.
      November 25, 2016 6:13 PM MST
    2

  • "I think Trump's election is a SYMPTOM of the bigger social forces which will cause a constitutional realignment in the not-too-distant future. "

    That's what I think too.  At least hope.  This whole election and Trump's election might be the catalyst to finally wake people up of the toxic two parties and the results they give us.
      November 25, 2016 6:25 PM MST
    1

  • 3907
    Hello OS:

    Well, I don't see a burst of freedom coming down the pike.  I don't think we'll get around to making Constitutional amendments, either.  Society will break down long before that..  Once the ramifications of Trumps agenda become clear, the people will take to the streets.  Trumpty Dumpty will have a great fall. 

    Hopefully, we'll be able to put it together again.

    excon This post was edited by excon at November 26, 2016 4:32 AM MST
      November 25, 2016 6:17 PM MST
    2

  • 3934
    @excon -- I don't like Trump or what he represents. However, I don't see him as being fundamentally different than GOP politicians of the past 40 or so years (ever since the Racist F***tard Dixiecrat element of the historical Democratic Party shifted to the GOP), so I don't see him as the engine of change.

    He may end up being an accelerator of change once the people who voted for him believing a Plutocrat like him would end the Culture of Corruption in our government realize how badly they've been duped and come around to supporting genuine grassroots change (of course, they'd have to compromise on Gunz, Gawd, Gayz and Abortion, so that process will be slow. But still...). Still, I see Trump's election as a symptom, not a cause.
      November 25, 2016 6:55 PM MST
    2

  • 3907
    Hello OS:

    That you think Trump is just an ordinary right wing politician is both surprising and frightening at the same time.

    For as long as the threat TO the state, IS the head of state, I have an absolute obligation to meet his agenda with resistance at every turn.

    excon This post was edited by excon at November 26, 2016 7:50 AM MST
      November 26, 2016 7:44 AM MST
    0

  • 3934
    @excon -- Could you please explain to me how you see Trump as being fundamentally different?  The only significant difference I see is that Trump is willing to say/do out loud and upfront what the political right has been more subtle about for the past several decades.


    Instead of using coded language like "welfare queens," "Real Americans," "law and order," and so forth, Trump says "Mexican rapists," "Syrian refugees are terrorists," "Nasty Woman(tm)" and so forth.

    Instead of hiding tax cuts for the rich behind the bogus "Laffer Curve", he's open about cutting taxes for the rich because...well, he's rich and he wants to cut taxes.

    Instead of hiding behind euphemisms like "collateral damage" and "enhanced interrogation," Trump is openly saying we're going to bomb and torture the s**t out of the F***ING HADJIS.

    Darth Cheny put his Halliburton interests into a blind trust, and then engineered all sorts of no-bid lucrative contracts for Halliburton during the invasion/occupation of Iraq. Trump is not even bothering with the pretense.

    But, really, what's different? Is putting Ben Carson (who knows f**k all about housing policy) in charge of HUD (Note: I understand this idea has been withdrawn) really different from making Michael "HeckuvaJobBrownie" Brown, who knew f**k all about disaster response, in charge of FEMA?

    Now, if you're arguing the Trump administration is likely to be a disaster, I agree. But that's because GOP policies since it adopted the Southern Strategy and started courting racist/fundamentalist ideologues have been inherently disastrous, not because Trump is a significant departure from those policies.

    In short, Trump is, to me, the espresso version of the the GOP coffee cup of the past 40-50 years. This post was edited by OldSchoolTheSKOSlives at November 26, 2016 12:00 PM MST
      November 26, 2016 11:59 AM MST
    0

  • 3907
    Hello again, OS:

    I believe Trump and/or his cohorts in congress, will ACT on the things the right wing only TALKED about.. 

    excon
      November 26, 2016 12:40 PM MST
    0

  • 3934
    @Excon -- You do have a point there. It remains to seen how much, if at all, more "establishment" Republicans will resist the Trumpistas' attempts to actually implement the Tea Party Tim agenda.

    What has (usually) happened since the Dixiecratification of the GOP is the Plutocrat wing has exploited the Tea Party Tim wing for electoral advantage, then thrown minimal bones to the TPTs because most of the Plutocrats are both more "liberal" (in the sense they prefer a more pluralistic society) and more "conservative" (in the sense they are reluctant to upset an advantageous status quo) than the TPTs.

    With the growing power of the TPTs -- Especially in primaries. For goodness sake, ORRIN HATCH faced a significant Tea Party challenger --  it seems like the attitude of the Plutocrat wing is evolving towards "So long as we get our tax cuts and eviscerated business regulation, let the TPTers have their abortion bans, immigrant-bashing, etc. It doesn't really affect us anyway."

    That could lead to some truly awful policy decisions. This post was edited by OldSchoolTheSKOSlives at November 26, 2016 12:54 PM MST
      November 26, 2016 12:53 PM MST
    0

  • I couldn't begin to guess with specifics; I simply don't know anywhere near enough.  I have a sneaky feeling though, that it will be something a lot of people will view as 'socialist' in some way, shape or form.  It might not even be a false allegation.
      November 25, 2016 8:31 PM MST
    0

  • Trump will want to further deregulate restrictions on corporate liability, reduce whatever rights unions still have, and reduce as much social security as he can. If possible, he will try to exit from agreements signed with the UN, and try to create more protectionist policies on trade. I think, so long as he has sufficient support in Congress (which he probably does have), he will achieve most of these things without the need for any kind of constitutional amendments.

    He certainly won't want to change the current arrangements regarding the lending of imaginary currency - it gives the appearance of working too well at the top end of town. That the money is fake is only apparent to a few world-class economists and not many people want to listen to what they are saying.

    As an Aussie, I have no right to say what Americans should put in their constitution - but here is what I would like to see in a new Australian constitution:
    The creation of a republic with an elected head of state who's role is purely ceremonial, symbolic and diplomatic:
    maintaining the Westminster system mostly intact,
    but with the introduction of proportional representation and the abolition of gerrymanders.
    Removal of the clause that makes it legal to discriminate against Aboriginals.
    The principles of the United Nations made legally binding, including all resolutions on Human Rights and the Environment.
    Right of animals to live free of cruelty.
    Illegal to sell Australian land or mining rights to foreign governments or companies, or to foreigners who live abroad.
    Currency to be based only on primary assets such as minerals and metals.
    Organisations to have the same legal liabilities and responsibilities as individuals - no legal protections.
    Organisations and individuals may not borrow more than 50% of their asset value, at no higher than 10% interest, compound interest eliminated.
    Permanent commission against corruption, and environmental defender's office, with real powers which cannot be rescinded.
    Political campaigns - state gives equal funding to each candidate, no private donations or other funding permitted.
    Whole of all qualifications, personal history and policies must be declared.
    Mandatory full background checks on all candidates for public office. This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at November 26, 2016 4:36 AM MST
      November 25, 2016 9:40 PM MST
    2

  • 3934
    @hartfire --- Thank you for your reply.

    While it's true you don't have the LEGAL right to influence United States politics in any formal way, I don't think you are denied a MORAL right to comment on US policies if you  think they are worthy of praise or deserving of criticism.

    I think there are several good points in your hypothetical Aussie Constitution of The Future...and some where I'd question what is is you're really trying to accomplish (I don't doubt your motives, just whether you've thought it through).

    Do you think Austrailia has had a similar history as I assert for the US, where there are long periods of stagnation and unresolved issues, leading to a crisis, after which change comes rapidly until stagnation settles in again?
      November 25, 2016 10:10 PM MST
    0

  • No. Our history is very different on many levels.
    Our constitution evolved gradually - the most major shifts to self-rule occurring between 1902 and 1933.
    Small shifts have occurred as often as annually, as far apart as eight years.
    We are still technically a constitutional monarchy under the Queen of England.
    If we do become a republic, we will have the opportunity to create a new constitution.
    Senior legal eagles have been working on it for decades - with almost no public consultation - to which I strongly object.

    I can't say that I have thought through all of my points as thoroughly as I would like - so am open to any critical thoughts you might have. Thinking together is always better than thinking alone.


    Appropos my thoughts on the US constitution - I know Americans would hate it, but I believe compulsory voting is democratically more effective because it is mostly the poorest and least empowered who abstain when permitted.
    The difference is not huge, but the sum result is that our centre of politics is about 10 degrees left of yours - and of course, being a classical liberal, I like that. I would prefer Aust. to be a little further left than we are, and a LOT more Green.

    Another is the right to bear arms. Yep - I know this is a hornet's nest issue.
    Australia never had a constitutional right to bear arms. It's history clearly precluded the possibility.
    Here, to have a license to own a gun, a person must have no psychiatric or criminal record and a very good reason, such as being a member of a shooting club, a hunter of feral animals, or a farmer who must sometimes put animals out of their misery.
    I have no gun and rejoice in the fact that I have no need for one.
    When Australia decided to ban automatic weapons and ban most semi-automatics - we instituted a buy-back scheme which paid owners the original price on the bill of sale or standard market price if the docket was lost. The rate of willing compliance was overwhelmingly high.
    Our rate of murders and mass murders is two-thirds lower per capita than in the USA. In addition, there is a general feeling of safety in our society which makes Aussies a fair bit more trusting and open. We may get stung for it like drongo idiots sometimes, but mostly it makes relating with one another easy and pleasant. This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at November 26, 2016 12:02 PM MST
      November 26, 2016 5:43 AM MST
    1

  • So so much I would agree on there.. not just for Australia but here too. 
      November 26, 2016 4:37 AM MST
    1

  • Huh?  I never even imagined it. I thought England had arrived at a point of democracy where the rate of evolution had slowed to a standstill - with the exception of Brexit.
    What changes do you think a majority of Brits would like to see?
      November 26, 2016 6:32 AM MST
    0

  • Yes for sure our evolution has slowed.. lol this is cos we have it mostly right in the first place.. re Brexit we didnt go against the establishment as in fact there were many, many politicians on all sides who wanted Brexit too so we just simply voted with our hearts.. for or against.. it really wasn't this act of rebellion people think. We had a Conservative government  before, we still have and many Conservatives wanted Brexit.. so really no sweat about us voting out. 

    I liked Ozgirls suggestions.. particularly about the Aboriginals.. there should be NO discrimination ... it's illegal to discriminate against anyone here and of course we don't have any known indigenous natives but i believe that's right and there should be no discrimination.. 

    I liked the one about animal cruelty and again that's already illegal here.. I like the one about owning guns.. it's the same here.. in fact most of the things suggested are already here... but one i know isnt is the compulsory voting.. i have qualms about forcing anyone to do anything, believe it or not we are pretty free here and that covers free speech, (you just have to do it respectfully) but I can see that if we are to choose a govt then it has to be that ALL of the people were consulted...
      November 26, 2016 7:52 AM MST
    2

  • I'd go for your move on political funding like a shot.  And the PR in voting.  I would add no secondary jobs, paid or unpaid, or sources of income if you work as an MP.  All MPs outside viable commuter range to be provided with a flat at taxpayer expense and we can remove one or two of the perks that result in MPs acquiring very expensive property paid for by the taxpayer.  I would also like to see worker participation in boardrooms to be made compulsory in businesses over a certain size.  

    But it's tinkering, really.  If we don't sort out the debt problem, the greed problem and the religion problem we'll just re-experience the last few decades as variations on a theme.
      November 26, 2016 5:08 PM MST
    1